Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 9

Protection?
How's this article protected, but IPs edit?  Sexy Sea  Shark  21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, I think it has expired. I will report this to an admin.-- Tr U cO 93 11 TaLk / SiGn 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New Additions
Big Show, Chris Harris and Ron Killings have signed with the WWE...Well, actually, the first two have yet to sign I believe... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.161.152 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Source? And, no, dirtsheets are not reliable sources.  TJ   Spyke   04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Damn it, why can't people lay these things to rest?! Just learn the fact that all "backstage sourced" news you see on the internet should not be on Wikipedia. End of discussion as this is backed up by many guidelines (WP:CB, WP:V, WP:SOURCES, WP:NPOV, etc.  Lex  T / C   Guest Book   10:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This is why I added that to the newsletter, as a heads-up to watch out for crap like this. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Lex, just wait until WrestleMania draws nearer! You've never seen so much speculative, unsourced bollocks in your life!  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹  Speak 15:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I think I hate this argument more than anybody, but let's take them one at a time:

Harris was reported to have signed with WWE, the next day TNA announced he was no longer with the company. WWE.com (I hate having to repeat this so many damn times) DOES NOT report on 99% of their signings. PERIOD. The "dirt sheets" as you call them is our only source on pretty much EVERY signing WWE makes. I think there is sufficient evidence to support this claim


 * This may have happened, but websites lie to get more viewers. ProWrestlingScoops has "Maria nude pictures" on their website and they have statements like "KELLY KELLY AND MARIA LESBIAN ACTION! SEE HERE!" to promote another site, Wrestlezone.com. All sites do false advertising to get viewers, and this is most likely one of them, because I hardly think Harris and WWE will come to an agreement the day after his release.

Killings left TNA. The reports say he has been telling people he has signed with WWE. In addition, the Wrestling Observer Newsletter has reported his signing. Once again, it is considered a "dirt sheet" but it is arguable one of the most reliable wrestling news sites on the net.


 * If TWO reported it, then get me a screenshot of their newsletter statting it, because no one has done so. And this can be like above.

Big Show was also reported by The Wrestling Observer newsletter.


 * Again, get a screenshot. Most sites say "TWO said that..." so people can believe them. They also reported the release of Derek Neikirk on various sites, and WWE announced he was just suspended.

I just don't know what it ACTUALLY takes to convince people of legitimacy. Wrestling is a tough genre to work with on wikipedia. As long as there are editors on this page who try for the best validity possible, these sites are really the only thing we can hope for.Dahumorist (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't convince people of the legitimacy of something that is not legitimate.  Lex  T / C   Guest Book   00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men, it doesn't matter what I believe, it matters what I can prove. Sources that pass BLP will do. I have actually yet to see a single direct reference from WrestlingObserver (fanzines quoting them doesn't cut it). But seriously though, what's the problem with waiting as long as it takes for an official announcement?? Is the world going to end if Wight, Killings and Harris are not added to the WWE roster?? I truly hope people aren't rushing in because they want to be the first to add the information.  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹  Speak 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's so, then they really have no lives.  Lex  T / C   Guest Book   00:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

be cause 99.999999999999% of the time the isn't an official announcement from WWE, especially when it comes to people re-signing such as Jericho. Skitzo (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Question?
Does anybody now when Lena Yada was moved to the ECW Brand. Based on watching Friday Night Smackdown, it seems that she would still be on Smackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 09patrick (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, on the roster page she's under the SmackDown! section, and on wwe.com she's on the SmackDown! superstars page, so I'd guess she's on SmackDown!. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It was just that she appeared the last couple weeks on ECW, she probably is appearing on part of the Talent Agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 09patrick (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I struck out my earlier comment because now on wwe.com she is on the ECW superstars page. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

SmackDown! Referee
I was just at the wwe.com page for referees, here, and there is no mention of a Wes Adams, who according to this page is a SmackDown! referee. I don't recall any mention of a referee called Wes adams either, so I'd thought I'd get other peoples thoughts/suggestions/opinions. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought he was still in FCW, maybe they just called him up and haven't updated their website yet (WWE's usually slow on the draw for that). Maybe he refereed last week on SmackDown.  The person that made that change will have to confirm that.  -- James   Duggan  22:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He's in the role Mike Posey and John Cone have been in during years past. I've seen him on ECW a couple of times and I think he's worked RAW once or twice also. WWE.com's referees section is still somewhat out of date (Mickie Henson;s still shown as a RAW referee and Nick Patrick hasn't been on TV for about a year now). Ken S. (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, I've definately seen Wes Adams on television, but he has been tossed around the rosters. Dahumorist (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Show
As reported earlier, it is still uncertain if Paul "Big Show" Wight has signed with WWE, but two sites (The Wrestling Observer, and wrestleview.com) have said that he has signed a new deal to come back to the company. I will continue to follow this story as it develops, but as of right now, nothing has been confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 09patrick (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for telling us you will be following this story very closely. WE appreciate it so much, because none of us have the time of day to open any single of the 1,000,000 dirtsheets on the internet.  Lex  T / C   Guest Book   01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, much appreciated, sarcasm aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.63.126 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OVW Talent
On the OVW Superstars page, they have some wrestlers listed that aren't on this list. Does anyone know why?CrystallixRed (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not everyone who works in OVW is contracted to WWE.  Lex  T / C   Guest Book   00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alex/Lex is right. That is why the OVW Women's Champion (O.D.B.) was able to sign a contract with TNA a few months ago. She was working in OVW, but did not have a contract with OVW. OVW is an independant promotion that has a working relationship with WWE (similar to what DSW had before WWE ended its working relationship with them).  TJ   Spyke   04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Names
Becuase this is a professional list of people employed by and/or contracted to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), I think they should be under their real names. So instead of John Morrison (John Hennigan), it should be John Hennigan (John Morrison).  Lex  T / C   Guest Book   00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No we should stick to keyfable if the wwe doesnt do it nore should we.


 * I think that we should make note at the top of the article that the names are kayfabe, and real names are in parenthesizes. Also, please sign your posts! iMat  thew  12:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't care either way, but I feel both names should be listed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should stick to kayfabe, because it is about the employees. And Big Daddy V's contract refers to him as Nelson Frazier, MVP's refers to him as Alvin Burke, CM Punk's refers to him as Phillip Brooks, etc.  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but until WWE release their contracts to the public it doesn't matter, if this was a character list for a soap it would be Character name then Actor, so we should do the same.Skitzo (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kenny
We should move him to inactive news is that he has doen his knee will this souce do

http://www.pwmania.com/newsarticle.php?page=202688932 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.159 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, that is not a reliable source. Also, please use periods between your sentences, and sign your posts with 4 "~" iMat  thew  12:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Lashley
Whats the deal with him is he ever gonna come back,

And also his name is Franklin Roberto Lashley odds are that all his life he's been called Bobby short for Roberto so I think we should put him as Bobby or Frankiln Bobby Lashley, let me know what you think and someone please tell me when he is comeing back Steelerfan-94 (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC).


 * There are rumors circulating that Bobby Lashley is leaving the WWE. Reasons are because of his girlfriend Kristal Marshall, a former SmackDown! Diva, was supposedly going to be moved to RAW to be his valet, but that idea was scrapped once she was supposedly going to turn heel by being Edge's valet. Marshall declined the storyline which was the reason why she was released. Another reason why was because he is now fully ready to come back, but hasn't been put in a storyline. However on wrestling spoiler sites, is is confirmed that he is leaving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.105.237 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He says he's released on his forum on this siteis that reliable enough as it's his own site?Skitzo (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I note that most sites release a rumor like this: "We can now confirm that Bobby Lashley has been released." Seriously, do we give a shit if some dude who has enough cash for awebsite and pastes rumors taken from other websites (like most of them) can confirm anything?  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   11:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As I intimated on the Lashley article, I think it's foolhardy to remove him until we have 100%, certifiable proof. We currently do not. Wikipedia prides itself on reliable sources, we really ought to wait for WWE.com or Lashley (in a face-to-face interview, preferably on video) say anything before we jump the gun. --L T Dangerous (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lex you missed my point that link was to Bobby Lashley's OFFICIAL site. Skitzo (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a forum on his website. ANyone can post in forums. Look how I am posting a message right now in a website owned by Wikimedia.  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   11:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

should we put next to him expecting release he said that he "done" with the wwe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.128.100 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No reliable source is available for such info. And check the page before you edit, this conversation is already taking place a few headings above...Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been removed from the WWE website. His profile is gone. I guess he is done officially.(me)


 * Doesn't mean he is gone. Often tiems they remove people so you forget about them, so that when they come back, its like "OH YEAH, I FORGOT ABOUT HIM" and its a shock.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we could remove his as they don't actually remove people that often at all, unless they are sent to developmental, which he hasn't been. Skitzo (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WWE Roster removing talent relations
Ok WP:PW members have agreed to remove the talent relations from the list because "roster" literally means the wrestlers and the on air talent for WWE. The article is not called "WWE Personnel", nor is it called "WWE Employees". So it was agreed to remove them event if they make promo appearances, that does not make them active as a wrestler or on air talent. The only exemption may be Stone Cold Steve Austin, who makes promo appearances here and then. The original discussion is here.-- Tr U cO 93 11 <b style="color:darkblue">TaLk</b> / <b style="color:darkblue">SiGn</b> 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there are a number of names from the list who may very well still belong on this page. Off the top of my head, people like Josh Mathews, Jack Korpela, Mae Young, Mark Yeaton, and others. I think the list should be looked at on a case by case basis. I certainly agree that some of these corporate employees are completely unnecessary, but on-air talents, and possibly even the Talent Relations/Producers should still be listed as they occasionally appear on camera. (i.e. Dusty Rhodes, Michael Hayes, etc.) Dahumorist (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with doing this is that a lot of the creative team, producers/trainers and people in the other roles section do appear on television frequently. The writers and producers will occassionaly get involved in a storyline (Dusty Rhodes, Micheal Hayes), frequent the show weekly (Dave Kapoor and Christopher DeJoseph), tend to superstars in the back, make special appearances as their old characters or simply come out to job (Brooklyn Brawler, Sgt Slaughter).  Sure there are a lot of corporate people in the other roles list who simply sit in an office all day and yes, they are not needed in this article.  But it is important to keep a list of those old time wrestlers and other personalities that do appear on television from time to time.  So I propose we bring back the entire Talent Relations section as well changing the Other Roles list to Other On-Air Talent and including those people such as superstars, commentators, announcers, hosts, the McMahons who all make appearances on TV when they are needed.  They are indeed essentially part of the Roster, simply just not assigned to any brands.


 * Here is my list of who from the Other Roles section I believe should remain in this article:


 * Stone Cold Steve Austin (Steve Williams) - Makes occasional appearances


 * Max Bretos - Part-time interviewer


 * Carlos Cabrera - Spanish commentator


 * Darren Drozdov - WWE.com reporter


 * Howard Finkel - Part-time announcer


 * Hillbilly Jim (Jim Morris) - Public Relations


 * Steve Keirn - Director of Florida Championship Wrestling


 * Jack Korpela - Occasional WWE Heat Color Commentator, Host of WWE Bottom Line and WWE specials


 * Josh Matthews (Josh Lomberger) - Editor and host of WWE 24/7, occasional commentator


 * Linda McMahon - Chief Executive Officer


 * Marissa Mazzola-McMahon - Director of National Public Relations


 * Shane McMahon - Executive Vice President of Global Media


 * Christopher Nowinski - Public Relations


 * "Mean" Gene Okerlund - Part-time interviewer


 * Dr. Ferdinand Rios - Physician


 * Marcelo Rodriguez - Spanish commentator


 * Hugo Savinovich - Spanish commentator


 * Mark Yeaton - Timekeeper


 * Mae Young - Makes occasional appearances

These are all "on screen TV talent that work for WWE" as you say, so they should be kept in this article. Doppy88 (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, those people should stay. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, I agree with that, but someone reverted my entire edit and added everybody. This is what I am talking about, if you are to do what you said above. Then only list those people not the entire corporate people. Come on now... Tr U cO 93 11 <b style="color:darkblue">TaLk</b> / <b style="color:darkblue">SiGn</b> 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with this, and made the appropriate changes to the page. If there are any disagreements at this point, feel free to discuss further. Dahumorist (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I like the "additional on air talent section" but I feel you should remove the "talent relations section". Tr U cO 93 11 <b style="color:darkblue">TaLk</b> / <b style="color:darkblue">SiGn</b> 17:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno, many of them appear on camera pretty frequently. Any thoughts out there? Dahumorist (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The list looks great like this, good job NickSparrow and Dahumorist. Doppy88 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

PAUL LONDON
Should we move him to inactive how long has it been now since we have seen him on tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.103.192 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * no they only go to inactive if they are injured, suspended or working on outside projects.Skitzo (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Last I heard he's being kept from performing due to an argument with Mr. McMahon. No, I don't have a source for this so feel free to revert this, admins. --Kaizer13 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)0

Thats right it was over the shootins star press and 450 and moves like that being baned

His argument over his moves that were banned was over a year ago, there is no reliable source as to why he's inactive, he could be injured for all we know or he could be doing some outside project like Ashley did with survivor.Skitzo (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Last night on raw they said he was out because of an injury. Of course that could be kayfabe. LessThanClippers (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt it, to be honest. They don't do fake injuries unless they help along a storyline, and Kendrick has no storyline right now. The Umaga squash isn't a storyline, the same could have been achieved with Super Crazy. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gavyn Sykes Paul is one of the most popular people on raw to take hm out would just be stuiped and if we carnt use the offfical show as a reliable source what can we use so move him to inactive but if it is kayfabe and they want us to believe it we should any way just cast your mind back to a few monthes ago when umaga was "injured" by hhh but in real life he was suspended —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.128.100 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Jim Ross on his official blog, Paul's got a foot injury. I added the reference to the article. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Chavo and ECW
Chavo is not on ECW. He is sitll consdiered a Smackdown! wrestler. Just like Miz and Morrison are still on ECW. The Talent exchange allows this. This may change, but it hasn't yet. Please stop making this change.LessThanClippers (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Ace
To the best of my knowledge, John Laurinaitis has never used the name "Johnny Ace" during his time with WWE. His |WWE Corporate bio lists him as John Laurinaitis. Johnny Ace was the name he used in Japan and WCW. Can someone please explain why he keeps getting listed here as Johnny Ace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.113.242 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Arn Anderson isn't his real name but it's what he is called in the article, your looking for problems that don't exist there, Johnny Ace is a well know name for him, you say to someone John Laurinaitis and they won't know who you mean. Skitzo (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that Arn Anderson wrestled in WWE under the name Arn Anderson and still makes appearances as Arn Anderson on WWE television. Laurinaitis (to the best of my knowledge) only works behind the scenes, and has never appeared on WWE television as Johnny Ace. Had Laurinaitis wrestled for WWE at one point as Johnny Ace, I would agree with him being listed here as Johnny Ace. Other former WWE personalities (such as Arn Anderson, Brother Love, and Brooklyn Brawler) are listed under their "stage names" because they still make occasional appearances as their old characters. Laurinaitis doesn't, and has never even appeared on WWE television as Johnny Ace (nor is the name Johnny Ace even mentioned in his WWE corporate bio). I just think that it's a little inaccurate to list him in here as Johnny Ace. (P.S.- I'm not looking for problems, I'm just trying to help the article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.146.137 (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference, it's hat he is most commonly know as, so that how he's listed, stop looking for faults where there aren't any.Skitzo (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin Delaney
Is this guy an ECW member or not? Govvy (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not. No contract with WWE, and does not appear on the website's roster.  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   12:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Tag Teams?
This seems ridiculously redundant to me. If one member is inactive, the team itself is obviously inactive, with the other member being active. Any thoughts? I'm really tempted to just remove them, but I want a consensus first. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * remove them, they are pointless and TBH i don't recall being asked about adding them...Skitzo (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. iMat  thew  17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon my ignorance but what is TBH? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TBH = To Be Honest ... Skitzo (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin Delaney
Does anybody know who this guy is? Right now he is making his 3rd appearence on ECW (the first two were squash losses against Shelton Benjamin and Big Daddy V). He is now in his third match against Mark Henry.  TJ   Spyke   03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He appears to be a random jobber. He's garnered quite a fanbase though. He'll probably receive a developmental contract soon last I heard. --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He works in CHIKARA as Colin Olsen. That's all I know. Dahumorist (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By now, he has already worked a fourth and fith match. Both were jobs to Kane and The Great Khali.  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he is on the main roster now. It is obvious he will be starting a tag team with Tommy Dreamer soon. Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.161.152 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Why Cant We Use This?
Table #1

Table #2

 T r U C o 9 31 1 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we can't, only 3 separate tables for each brand, but it would need to be put to a vote so the consensus can agree to it.Skitzo (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Truco, why don't you put up a poll at WT:PW iMat  thew  22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Or I can put it here. but I will announce it at WT:PW. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Support, Oppose, or Comment for either table.


 * Support and Comment - I suggest for Inactive superstars, you include it in the "role" column, and the reason in the "status" column:

Thats just my opinion. iMat thew  22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is ok too.. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Tables make it harder to read. Mshake3 (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tables are actually made to make it easier to read... T r U C o 9 31 1 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this, it organizes the table:(Sortable WikiTables)

iMat thew  22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I put your ideas up for approval.. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Too much text is added to the screen, with very little benefit. Adding a brand name and a role next to everyone is overkill. Mshake3 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok but what if we still kept it in sections? Also one more thing, why cant we add citations to the articles? This list could easily be made to a Fl with proper sourcing.. T r U C o 9 31 1 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. iMat  thew  23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you keep it in sections, then what would be the headers? Mshake3 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support The Headers would just be the names of the 3 brands. Skitzo (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which would support "Table 2." Also, to be fair, (it's up to Truco), but I think that this poll should close next Sunday, giving everyone a week to choose a side. iMat  thew  23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Although I respect Truco's work, I feel that all those tables will make it much harder to read and very distracting, similar to List of WWE pay-per-view events. Cheers, L  A  X  23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you want, I can remove the tables from the WWE PPV, Since I am the one who added it. T r U C o 9 31 1 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It all depends on what the WP:PW community wants. Cheers, L  A  X  23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

_____________

Do not respond to the above conversation, I (the proposer) agree that using that many tables is kinda hard to read T r U C o 9 31 1 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Poll

-I proposed to add sources to the article to make it a FL article. People disagreed before because it would look "ugly" but this article would easily be able to reach FL status with citations. But the citations I added were the superstar's WWE profiles, which proves that they are contracted to WWE, can we be able to do this?-- T r U C o 9 31 1 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I supported it then, I support it now. iMat  thew  00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I doesn't matter if it makes the article "ugly" or not, citations are a must. Cheers, L  A  X  00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Why the hell would you use each and every bio as a citation, when you can just use the god damn roster pages? Mshake3 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, I proposed to add citations to the article not only their bios..Also it proves that they are signed to WWE on that brand. T r U C o 9 31 1 04:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And why can't you just put links to the three rosters on the bottom of the page? Mshake3 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then it wouldnt become a FL, unless by some miracle. T r U C o 9 31 1 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's time you learn about the phrase "Quality over Quantity." Mshake3 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the prolem with a lot of tables. Look at the Academy Award Winners articles. They are full of tables, and read fine.  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I just think it's unnecessary. The current setup is fine. I don't care to elaborate on my thought right now as it is late. Dahumorist (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose If it's not broken, don't fix it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what do you mean? T r U C o 9 31 1 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * supoort Table 1. It is broken.  This page doesn't look nice, tables are nice, and if we had 1 total table, people could sort for all raw people (wrestlers, on air talent) etc., or all inactive wrestlers, etc.  sortable tables are the best way to go when their is nothing but lists. LessThanClippers (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that's great but alot of people oppose it because it will be 'hard to read', right now the discussion is whether we should source the article with the bios of the wrestlers..But if more people agree that will be fine.. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose a topic split here, so the votes can be counted seperately. The current set-up is rather confusing... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having a few tables, but one for each section currently up, would be way too much. Cheers, L  A  X  22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Table #1

Table #2

Tables Poll
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the Addition of individual citations. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Undecided:Slight majority of support, but many comments of opposition. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the poll if you support the table or not, if you voted about the table above (not for the individual tables but for 1 table), it will be here. The current poll calls for the entire list to be in one table. This discussion will close in 1 week. (2-4-08)  T r U C o 9 31 1 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Table 1. It is broken.  This page doesn't look nice, tables are nice, and if we had 1 total table, people could sort for all raw people (wrestlers, on air talent) etc., or all inactive wrestlers, etc.  sortable tables are the best way to go when their is nothing but lists. LessThanClippers (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Table 1. If it is not broken into sections, then it should have the four columns. iMat  thew  23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't believe there is any real reason to make this switch, in my opinion, the page looks neat and organized by itself. Again, if it's not broken, don't fix it. But others may think it is broken, and that's fine. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Table 1. Totally agree with Matthew and Clippers <b style="background:Navy;color:lime">S-PAC</b><b style="color:green">54</b> 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't feel like there is really any problem here. All the other roster pages seem to follow the same style and, yet there is no debate there either. I think the current setup is neat, tried, and true, and considering the number of casual editors we get on this page, adding more complicated coding to create these unnecessary tables is just going to result in an overabundance of screwups and format problems from editors unfamiliar with the proper coding. The current setup is simple and easy to catch on, without much fuss. Dahumorist (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment -Tried and true doesn't mean its the best. IF that were the case, Wikipedia would never exist.  also, if it were tougher to edit, maybe vandals would mess with it less :) Eh, I could only dream.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Tables are actually fairly easy to edit. What is it that makes it hard to edit for you? iMat  thew  00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's fairly repetitive to have next to each superstar their brand, that they are a wrestler and that they are active. The headers that we have now simply cover that much more easily.  It is also important to have them seperated by brand and seperating those active from those inactive just like this list does now.  Doppy88 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You make a point.. T r U C o 9 31 1 03:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Doppy, you're my hero. Dahumorist (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But still tables would make it look neater. T r U C o 9 31 1 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Insert the tables, I don't see a problem with it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: There are currently 4 support and 3 oppose. -- iMat  thew   20  08  23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't have a problem with a few tables. Cheers, L  A  X  01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To decide how many citations to use, not whether or not to use them. I agree with Truco, if it can pass FL with five citations (one for each roster) then go for it. If not, cite everything. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citations Poll
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the Table addition. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Undecided:There is a slight majority of support, but many comments of opposition. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the poll if you support or oppose for adding citations to the article, in hopes of making it a future FL. If you voted above, it will show up here. This discussion will also close in one week. (2-4-08)  T r U C o 9 31 1 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I supported it then, I support it now. iMat  thew  00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I doesn't matter if it makes the article "ugly" or not, citations are a must. Cheers, L  A  X  00:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Why the hell would you use each and every bio as a citation, when you can just use the god damn roster pages? Mshake3 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - it makes sense to add citations to the article; every other article either has or requires them. What makes this one so different? NiciVampireHeart (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsure - Mshake has a point. It's redundent with a cite after each one, when the roster page could be used to source the whole article. But I'm not sure what policy dictates for this one. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment-Well if adding only the roster page ref, could it still be made into an FL? T r U C o 9 31 1 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would think so as you don't need to cite each players profile page for someone like the New York Yankees just the main roster page of their website so the same should apply here IMO

so with that in mind I Oppose. Skitzo (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't see the problem with adding the refs. to the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem, we just said citations "in general" we never said that we would agree to do one thing or the other, I just suggested general citaions. And I agree with Gavyn. T r U C o 9 31 1 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no problem with citing roster pages, but I feel individual citations is ridiculously unnecessary and ugly. If this is proposing a vote on individual citations, I must definately have to OPPOSE. Dahumorist (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See, just because it will look "ugly" isnt a reason. Citations are a must in Wikipedia articles... T r U C o 9 31 1 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They are, but when we just cite the roster pages themselves, what the hell is the point? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, if it can pass as a FL with just the roster pages as a source on the header then lets go with that, but we are going to need to source that these superstars are "wrestlers/interviewers/inactive/tag team".-- T r U C o 9 31 1 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So wait a minute. This poll is about whether or not to use references? Mshake3 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well not entirely, just to whether to add citations that proves that they are employed by WWE, and  that they are what the header says they are. T r U  C o 9 31 1 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why is my time being wasted with this discussion? Of course you use references. You just need to know what a GOOD one is. Mshake3 (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but people are arguing that it looks "ugly"..but we may as well just go with the roster pages as refs, and other third party sources. T r U C o 9 31 1 03:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Put 5 citations up for the 3 brands and the 2 developmental territories, I thought this was already established should be done back when we had the original discussion. But no more than those 5 on the respective brand headers.  Everything else that we are doing now such as recent signings and injuries having citations is fine.  So all I propose we add are those 5 citations and someone who can help add missing citations for the recent signings and injuries both under inactive talent for the brands and developmental terrotories. Doppy88 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Update:There are currently 4 support and 3 oppose. iMat thew   20  08  23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For a poll on whether or not there should be citations. What a giant waste of time this was. Mshake3 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No but people were against citations for each superstar, that proves they are signed to WWE and that is their role (i.e. wrestler/manager)-- T r U C o 9 31 1 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To decide how many citations to use, not whether or not to use them. I agree with Truco, if it can pass FL with five citations (one for each roster) then go for it. If not, cite everything. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I added 5 citations for the rosters, but they were removed stating that the External Links section already covers it. Should External Links just be removed and the inline citations be added back for the 5 rosters? Doppy88 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should move them to a reference section similarly used by the Royal Rumble and NFL Draft pages. Like they have a general page, then an in depth page of references. They were removed because they ruin the redirects to the specific roster like from the WWE Raw article, the Raw brand redirect is ruined with the new citation. T r U C o 9 31 1 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at one random link, such as JBL's bio page. Why is this considered a better citation of him being on the Raw roster as opposed to the roster page? Mshake3 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * None really, as I see now, but this list needs clean up as it is now tagged to meet Wiki standards. T r U C o 9 31 1 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

DX and The Hardys
I think someone should put something like

DX-Occasional Tag Team

The Hardys-Occasional Tag Team

That's what I think.--WillC (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No because The Hardys haven't teamed up in awhile, and they are in pursue of individual wrestling careers. D-X reunites on occasions, but they don't always reunite in competition, sometimes they might only reunite for segments/promos/vignettes/etc. The "roster" is for active tag teams (meaning like people who tag team on regular basis) T r U C o 9 31 1 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well DX reunites regularly(in away),tonight and just a few weeks ago.I understand about the Hardys.--WillC (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

DX also come to the ring together and use the same ring gear, plus they appear together on many house shows and like every 3 episodes. I think they can be considered "an active tag team".  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. "One Night Only Reunion" are not words that should be echoed twice a month. DX is as frequent a staple on RAW as Mick Foley or Ron Simmons. Dahumorist (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

DX is still an active tag team. In fact, where I live, they are running commercials for an episode of raw taping here in l.a. and too draw up ticket sales, they are announcing that DX will face Kennedy and Orton as the main event. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * DX are not an active tag team. They've had 1 match in the last 6 months. Neither should be listed since DX only reunites once every few months, and the Hardys haven't teamed together since they lost the tag titles.  TJ   Spyke   22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hardys united on ECW against Kennedy and MVP before Survivor Series. But I agree, they aren't an active tag team. However, DX has matches every three-four weeks, come to the ring together and almost always have a weekly promo together. If your logic were correct TJ, then Carlito and Santino Marella and The Highlanders wouldn't still be tag teams because they haven't had a match on Raw for some time.  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actulay The Highlanders were on there just last week I think and Santino and Carlito were in a tag match like 3 weeks ago. -- Cra sh U  nderride  23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Harris
Shall wikipedia put Chris Harris in the wwe roster section but under a headline with like No brand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because there is no reliable source for such a signing. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Gavyn, check out his official website. However, he could be making it up, so I suppose it mightn't count as a reliable source. I'm not sure so I'll let you decide. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He can't make it up because then WWE would precede to doing some legal action against him for that. Plus he is already signed to WWE, so they can't stop him from reporting it. It has been added to the Chris Harris page, and may as well stay in the unassigned talent section.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for correcting me. In that case, I'll go revert my previous edit to Harris' article if it hasn't been already. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Undertaker tap out
I was recently watching Kurt Angle vs The Undertaker at No Way Out 2006 and Michael Cole and Tazz were saying that both men had never taped out now i no that Kurt has since he went to tna but i carn't think about any times that taker has should we put it under Championships and accomplishments if he still hasen't taped it would be like being 15-0 at Wrestlemania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.245 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not an important accomplishment, nor the right place to talk about it.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 01:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen hear you ass clown wat do you mean not important accomplishment he wrestled for how many years now and not one time has he taped out and if i did this on the udertakers artical i woulnt have got responce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.245 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First, no personal attacks, see WP:CIVIL. Second, please sign your posts. Three, it's not notable to an encyclopedia. To a wrestling fan, yeah, it's an interesting bit of trivia. But it's not notable. See WP:NOTE. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed
I keep adding tags in the article and someone keeps deleting them. Would it kill anyone to revert someone who is vandalizing the article. This article gets so many edits than i can't just check the history page and find out. This person has deleted the citation needed tags 5 times already and this is already annoying me. It is vandalizing and can be reported at ANI.  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree with you more. iMat  thew  02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add them again, but I would like for all the editors involved with this article to please patrol for the vandal. Thanks,  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C   Guest Book   02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i'll do my best MATT (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sign Guy
I'm not sure, so I'll ask everyone. Is he signed to the WWE for anything. He seems to be at almost every WWE event. Does he travel with them? Does anyone have any information on him. If he is contracted to them, he should appear in the article. iMat thew   20  08  21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No he is not signed by WWE. He just has ties with them, thats why John Cena, Bobby Lashley, Edge and Randy Orton appeared during his episode of Deal or no Deal. For all his support of WWE, WWE let him meet those 4 wrestlers. But other than that he is not contracted by WWE, and he does not travel with them. Going to WWE shows is his hobby, but WWE really doesn't acknowledge him. So he should not be added, EVER. lol-- T r U C o 9 31 1 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NEVER, EVER, EVER. Thanks Truco! lol. iMat  thew   20  08  21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's also been interviewed on the former Confidental show. He does have some notability in the wrestling world, but that's about it. Mshake3 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Has this guy evan been to a WWE show this year? It used to be that I saw him almost every week

but now I don't see him. Steelerfan-94 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC),


 * I actually met and took a pic with him at the Rumble last week, so yes. He was however seated in a no sign zone and he was opposite the camera's view. Doppy88 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He was on Raw tonight.He was on camera when Santino and Carlito were making their way to the ring.He had a poster that said something about a meatball sub,with Carlito's head replacing the meatballs.--WillC (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? he is still not an employee of WWE. Skitzo (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If he is WWE probably does not want the public to know because of the Kayfabe issue. and besides what's this guy's name any way? Steelerfan-94 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC).


 * IIRC, his name is Rick Ackberger. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Finlay
Finlay as well as Hornswoggle should be added to one of the people allowed on SmackDown! and also RAW. He is Hornswoggles protector, and seen quite often on RAW. Any objections? GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i would think so. <b style="background:Navy;color:lime">S-PAC</b><b style="color:green">54</b> 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, it seems any more that Hornswoggle is on RAW just as much as Smackdown!. and Finlay is on RAW all of the time, sometimes just talking to McMahon backstage.Steelerfan-94 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Seems like a consensus, I will add it. GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

batista
Is his last name Batista, or Bautista? it keeps changing on the main page. Steelerfan-94 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC).


 * His last name is Bautista (full name=Dave Bautista) but he dropped the "u" for wrestling, hence being known as "Batista". ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Burchail and Katie somthing
How do we know they are returning,. I dont have sports channels so give me info please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been wondering the same thing. Steelerfan-94 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Spoilers for next weeks Raw, which was taped on Monday night, I believe is where that info is coming from. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Great Khali
If you go to his main page it say's his birth name is Dalip Singh Rana, but we have him listed as just Dalip Singh. who agree's we should put him as Dalip Singh Rana ?. Steelerfan-94 (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC).


 * No because he only uses Dalip Singh on his acting credits also, the Rana is similar to the name after Guerrero in Eddie's full name. Skitzo (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE severs ties with OVW
It's been reported that WWE has severed ties with OVW and is moving all their contracted wrestlers to Florida Championship wrestling. Plus, you still have several guys listed who were recently released. (Ace Steel being one of them) Geld, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, and the roster has been removed for OVW.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 20:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OVW is not defunct. WWE just severed ties with them. OVW is still in existance, but all of the WWE contracted guys are leaving. Geld, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not. The OVW website is gone. Geld, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.161.152 (talk)


 * Is it really? And indeed, if even DSW carried on when WWE split from it, there's no reason OVW won't. WWE never owned OVW, and there were always a handful of workers for OVW whose contracts were with OVW (or weren't contracted at all) rather than with WWE. A prominent example was ODB. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the page
So according to the tags, this article needs additional sources. It also needs clean up, apparently not meeting Wiki's WP:MOS. So what can we do to fix this? Suggestions? -- T r U C o 9 31 1 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-open the above polls (on tables and citations) at WT:PW, as not many votes were cast in the other discussions. iMat  thew   20  08  21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because I realized that adding tables to every section is sort of cruft. Mayby if we moved the FCW roster somewhere else, then the page would be smaller and mayby one big table could be work. Also citations are just needed for their "job", the stuff written in italics by each superstar. The roster pages cover really who is on what brand. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The page should either be fully cited, or not cited at all. If you need a citation saying that The Boogeyman is currently injured, why shouldn't you have a citation saying that Batista is on Smackdown. Without citations, anyone can argue that Hornswoggle is on Raw, and that the note should say "Hornswoggle can appear on Smackdown also". With a citation next to his name, it proves that he is on Smackdown, and appears on Raw also.  iMat  thew   20  08  21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because you don't cite facts. The Boogeyman being injured/his status/his injury, etc. needs citation, no doubt about it. Batista being on SmackDown! is fact, multiple external links can be provided as saying that and one is already provided to the bottom of the article. Main three reasons you cite something is when "adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", "When quoting someone" or "When adding material to the biography of a living person". Batista and Hornswaggles roster arrangments are self-explanatory, as they can be by simply watching WWE or visiting any site with a roster on it. There is such thing as overusing citations. — Save_Us   †  21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ...or visiting any site with a roster on it is what I'm talking about. Adding a link to another site with a roster on it. iMat  thew   20  08  21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh geez, sofixit. Google search WWE roster, ignore Wikipedia results, WWE's results, and out-of-date entires and add it to the external links sections. Don't complain about citations unless your actually talking about citing something like BLP-sensitive material or something that is challengable. External links (like rosters lists) being present doesn't = citations. — Save_Us   †  21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see your point. But as Truco said, what else can be done to the article? iMat  thew   20  08  21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please point out the part of MoS you and Truco think the article may conflict with? — Save_Us   †  21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem, I am just pointing out the tags and trying to find suggestions. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike DiBiase Jr.
Before anyone readds him again, someone, anyone, please provide a source that states that he is coming to the WWE because I looked and I couldn't find anything. — Save_Us   †  02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find it either, but I remember he and his brother were reported as signed at the same time, though Mike apparently had a number of independent obligations to fulfill. Still, I can't find it anywhere and he has a private myspace, so unless he shows up in FCW, I guess we may as well just leave him off. Dahumorist (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah you're right, I remember only seeing news of his signing on a few sites while most only mentioned the Ted Dibiase signing. It's possible the reports of him signing were erroronous and he was confused for his brother. Doppy88 (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

alphabetical order
dont you think it would be easier for readers if the wwe roster and the TNA roster was in alphabetical order —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I cannot figure out what order they have it in now. It would be quite nice to have some sort of order in that makes sence. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 11:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Its in order alphabetically by last name. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 12:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be either last name first, or go by their first name, like

John Cena, and go by their first name or

Cena John, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelerfan-94 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise for my earlier comment. I just realised that it is already in alphabetical order by last name, but displaying the first name first. I agree with the current system in place. Please ignore my earlier comments on this topic. Cheers. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Divas
Should we put in comers "Divas" like on the tna page and also the superstars of ecw are some times known as "extemists" on the ecw divas part we should be known as "vixans" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.99.252 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The ECW Superstars have not been referred to as "Extremists" and "Vixens" for months now! iMat  thew   20  08  12:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ever since WWE released Brooke they have not beenc called that, and Kelly Kelly and Layla are both in another storyline now that makes them hate each other.  Steelerfan  -94   19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC).

Balls Mahoney
It mentions he is on maternity leave it should be paternity for he is a male ;) 82.3.126.153 (talk)


 * actually, it says parental leave. Please read the article properly before posting. Regards, ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 01:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It said maternity a few days ago, I changed it to paternity a few days ago. — Save_Us   †  17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

JR
Was it just me or did anyone else hear that when Mark Henry was on raw a week from the rumbel JR said something that on the live feed it was beeped and on the replays it was taken out all together and the last time Mark was on it hapend but this time no beep just taken out does anyone no what he said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.128.25 (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum or the appropriate place to discuss this. Plese take it someplace else. — Save_Us   †  17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Rory McAlister
He has a complete pectoral tear this was on his muspace have received countless e-mail asking how I am doing as of late and asking how my injury is. Well I had no clue anyone knew I was hurt as I never told anyone and I don't read the dirt sheets so I have no clue how they know but it's always nice that people show they care.

In a match recently I hurt my chest. Didn't know how, but I knew something was wrong. WWE had me see a surgeon immediately and after an mri I discovered I had torn my right pectoral completely off the bone. I went in for surgery yesterday morning and all went well. The tear was worse than first thought but the Doc assures me it has been anchored securely and he is more than happy with the results. I had an amazing team of surgeons and I have an amazing physical therapy team. Both of whom are the teams the Cincinnati Reds use. I made the joke that I hoped they know medicine better than the Reds know baseball but that joke dropped like a lead fart.

I am totally confident to be back very soon in better shape than I left both physically and mentally. Again thank you for all the e-mails of well being. I will keep you all updated!

Alba O'Ways

Rory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.54.240 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering this IP is coming froma educational facility in Australia, I very much highly doubt that you are who you say you are. This is the same comment that McAlister posted on his MySpace earlier this week after suffering the injury. — Save_Us   †  01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think he's just copying the posting from the myspace. Mshake3 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

omg save us your a dumb ass who do you think im am i did copy and past it from his myspace to prove to people like you (Pessimists) that it was true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.100.195 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No Personal Attacks please. D.M.N. (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Burchail and Katie Lea
shouldnt wikipedia put Paul Burchails and Katie Leas profile on the proper roster not on the inactive because they are on wwe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 09:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the page first! They have been listed as active since last Monday when they debut on Raw. iMat  thew   20  08  11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Finlay - road agent
I could have swore NiciVampireHeart found a citation for this, but no such citation exists in the article. Noble being a producer also needs a cite... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did find one for Finlay, but I never added it to this article. I'll do it now. It's here under the "World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment" heading. As for Noble, I dunno. I'll see if I can find one. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I found one for Noble, but I haven't added it to the article because it seems to be a fansite. I'll give you guys the link, here, and let you decide. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, right. That was in Finlay's article. Not sure about the source for Noble myself, but it does look like a fansite. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to get a lot of references from the Divas DVDs, as he was a trainer/producer for them for several years. I recall Trish and others talking about him, and Finlay himself being interviewed as well. At the same time, I guess we need to know if he's still in that role. Mshake3 (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mysterio Injured
See here. However, it says that he still wants to compete at Now Way Out, so I take that means that we can't list him as inactive yet. Thought I'd wait for other people opinions, so, any thoughts/comments? ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's wait. I'm pretty sure it might be "storyline". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's why i posted here, instead of making an idiot out of myself and posting it in the article. ;) I suppose time will tell really. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. Let's just wait. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether it is storyline or not, which it most likely isn't, he would still not wrestle to sell the injury so we should not wait. Doppy88 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's a storyline, since SD!'s been taped since Wednesday of last week, and he had a segment to build his feud with Edge.CrystallixRed (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we at a point where all injuries "could be storyline", and thus we have to treat them as such? Mshake3 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

it sound storyline because they weren't shaw about the injury if it was real they would have told us what it was but f its real it might just be a short injury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.130.154 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a storyline. If it were a storyline then they wouldn't involve Dr. James Andrews and they wouldn't injure Mysterio at a House Show rather than on SmackDown if it actually was a storyline. He will most likely be injured for a few months, until that is confirmed by WWE, then we shouldn't list Myesterio as inactive. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 06:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we use to put people on the inactive list regardless if they were kayfabe injured or actually injured did we not?  Steelerfan  -94   19:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure on that, but I didn't post on the actual page because he still wants to compete at No Way Out, which would mean that he wouldn't be inactive if he competes. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 19:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Inactive means that he is no longer competing. WWE has not confirmed/denied whether he will be competing at No Way Out or not. He is not inactive until announced. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

the injury might be like tomkos back surgary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.102.189 (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Please Sign Your Comments! 2. Since WWE has not provided an update on Mysterio, it looks like he will be competing. Either that or it is just a storyline. Most likely the former. They might make him job so that he can take some time off. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dinsmore
should wikipedia put Eugene in the Developemnt roster because he made a return to OVW as his original gimmick Nick "Eugene" Dinsmore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.42.6 (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OVW is no longer a WWE developmental facility, so I doubt it. --Kaizer13 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct. OVW is just another indy fed now, no different than the hundres/thousands that also exist.  TJ   Spyke   01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.McMahon
Vince is not active, does he wrestle on a daily basis? (including PPVs) No, wrestling for 2 consecutive weeks doesn't make him active, if he wrestled as much as he did during the Lashley/Umaga fued then yes.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A few weeks back, William Regal was wrestling four weeks strait, but was not considered active because he stopped after those four weeks. He is still listed as occasional wrestler though, as is Vince. iMat  thew   20  08  22:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think he should be considered as active. he wrestles for a few weeks every now and again, while the others wrestle pretty much every week. I say leave him where he is. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's the argument, then wouldn't Funaki and Mike Knox be considered "occasional wrestlers?" Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but they do not have other jobs like Vince does, as that prevents him from wrestling on daily basis. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Funaki and Mike Knox, unlike Vince, are signed to a wrestling contract. iMat  thew   20  08  22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough point. I clearly didn't think mine all the way through, lol. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a "wrestling contract". There is "talent contract". How do you think some wrestlers like Matt Striker, William Regal, Kurt Angle and others turned from wrestlers to on-screen characters?  Lex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C  Guest Book   01:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Active Status
To clear up any future controversies regarding this topic, There should be a set of ground rules that should be followed so everybody knows what the guidelines are:

1. If you hold a title, you're automatically active.

2. If you're listed as an occasional wrestler, but are involved in a heavily featured feud where you are wrestling matches as part of that feud, you're active.

3. For full time wrestlers, you need to appear on TV once every 4 weeks (whether you wrestle or not), or you're inactive.


 * A. Raw wrestlers need to appear on either Raw or Heat once every 4 weeks


 * B. Smackdown or ECW wrestlers need to appear on either of those 2 shows once every 4 weeks.

4. If there's documented proof you're injured, you're inactive until you return to TV or have documented proof of returning at a live event.


 * A. If promos say so and so returns next week, then they may be added to the active list.

Hopefully there will be no further disagreements and I hope these guidelines can cut down on confusion.

I apologize for causing any trouble.

Thank you,

Vjmlhds February 16, 2008 23:23 (UTC)


 * I disagree with point #2, just because you are heavily involved in a feud does not make you active. If you remember, Vince was heavily involved in the feud with Stone Cold and Dude Love during the weeks leading up to Over the Edge (1998), but he only wrestled like once in a while. If wikipedia existed back in the late 90s, Vince would not be active. T r U C o 9 31 1 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with 2. iMat  thew   20  08  23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to win with #2, so I'll concede that one.

As long as it's pointed out that guys like Regal, Lawler, and Vince do wrestle aside from their other responsibilities, I can live with that.

But the other 3 points should have no wiggle room, as they're pretty much cut and dry.

Agreed?

Vjmlhds February 16, 2008 23:59 (UTC)

Actually I also disagree with 4A. If promos are airing for a return (currently, like Candice Michelle), they should not be re-added to the active list, because they have not returned yet. When "promos are airing for return", it is stated in italics next the wrestler's name in the inactive list. iMat thew   20  08  00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken.

Vjmlhds February 17, 2008 00:11 (UTC)

Can we get a consensus on these 3 guidelines?

1. If you have a title you're active

2. The 4 week rule

3. Documented that you're injured--inactive; Documented that you're back (either on TV or at a live event with reference)--active

Plus I created an "Occasional Wrestler" category because that do get in the ring and wrestle shouldn't be clumped in with those that don't.

Vjmlhds February 17, 2008 00:26 (UTC)

I agree kinda but it might be easy if you put them on "on air talent" and say for instance. William Regal - RAW Manager and occasional wrestler.  Steelerfan  -94   16:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Format
There has been a lot of back in forth about how I have been trying to arrange the page, and it has led to some unintended bad will on my part.

Let me explain why I have done what I have doing.

I was trying to make the format of this page more consistent with that of the TNA roster page.

Over there the personnel is divided out into more specific categories such as announcers, managers, authority figures, etc.

I felt that by doing it my way, it would better show what everybody's role is on that particular brand instead of everybody being thrown into one big heap of "other talent".

I thought my way would be easier to read and let everybody know who does what on what brand without going through the big "other talent" schmozz.

Give my way a shot, and if I get negative feedback, the message will be received and I'll be a team player.

Thank You.

Vjmlhds February 18, 2008 23:17 (UTC)


 * In the future may I reccomend that when you are considering drastic changes you make the proposal first, and let people come to a consensus. You could even make the changes on your talk page, or a subpage of it, a temporary sandbox if you will, and then link us all to that page as part of your proposal.  You will find it a lot easier to get along with everyone here if you are seen as a team player.  For 1, I will be moving Big Show, he is set to appear on Raw tonight, but no announcement has been made that he will be a Raw Brand Superstar, in fact, his last appearance in WWE was as an ECW extremist.  LessThanClippers (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, previous WP:PW consensus is to list the wrestlers in alphabetical order of the first word in their ring name, whether its a nickname or proper name, ignoring "the." Thus - The Big Show would start with B, Steve Austin would start with S, and K-Kwik would start with K. LessThanClippers (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your last change because it makes assumptions as to what inactive talent will be assigned to what brand. What you are doing is making predictions, even if they are highly educated guesses, we can't do that. Please see WP:CRYSTAL - LessThanClippers (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Show
Who put The Big Show on the roster as RAW talent? has it been said that he is coming to RAW? if so sorry for bringing it up but someone let me know.  Steelerfan  -94   00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No it hasn't been said that he is going to wrestle for Raw. LessThanClippers (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well why the hell is he on the roster for the RAW talent?  Steelerfan  -94   00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome to our worldLessThanClippers (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also should Floyd Meweather (I know I spelled his name wrong) be listed as RAW "On Air Talent? I though this came up on the WP:PW talk page.  Steelerfan  -94   19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Show is not on the Raw roster, and until he makes an appearance on a show, he will remain in the inactive talent. As for Floyd Mayweather, he should not be on this roster page. This page is not going to add people like Floyd Mayweather or Donald Trump, it goes against what the page is intended for. — Save_Us   †  02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He'll be competing at a Smackdown/ECW live event in a couple weeks. I know, he COULD be on ECW, but it appears that he'll be on Smackdown. Mshake3 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently since he is in a storyline with Pretty BOy, so he will appear on all three brands until after WMXXIV..So idk ...

 T r U C o 9 31 1 03:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE has listed him as part of their Smackdown roster. It is official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.161.152 (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Smackdown. Mshake3 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Talent
Why can we not say about how long it will be for a superstar to return if there injured?  Steelerfan  -94   20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CRYSTAL.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What I ment to say is how long the injury should take like. when John Cena was injured, Mr. McMahon said at No Way Out he would probably be out 6-12 months, and yes he came back in four, but just a how long the injury should take if they were out for that only, NOT how long it will be before they come back. who agree's?  Steelerfan  -94   23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This brings into question soemthing I've had aproblem with on this page for some time. This page seems to not draw a distinct line between kayfabe and legit.  We dont know how long he was truly projected to be out, was it a swerve or was it what they thought.  There is no reason we cant source "expected to be out until 6/08" if you have a source that says that, but it has to be sourced.  On the other hand, it would be interesting to try and clean up the many flaws blurring hte kayfabe/legit line in this article.

LessThanClippers (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes!! so do you think we can do it? like just yesterday I think it said Rey Mysterio would be out for 4-6 months and it's out of the article faster then a set of rims at a Puff Daddy concerte lol.  Steelerfan  -94   00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How many times has it been sourced the correct day, do you know? Doctors make projections and then websites and insiders get the information. It's not reliable. Doctors make projections that turn out to be wrong all the time. The fact is, any projected date is going to violate WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot make estimated times of events happening, whether or not its a sourced guess or not, it is still a guess. — Save_Us   †  01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I still say no, we are not a newsite, we are not suppose to make assumptions of their injuries and how long it will take. Even if WWE says it, they are sometimes wrong due to trying to stay legit/or in a storyline. We are not a Crystal Ball. T r U C o 9 31 1 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

i think that its a good idea as its only a estimate and it save time checking to see when they might be back mabye its only kayfabe mabye not but its not gonna start ww3 now is it it wont kill anyone so i vote for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.6.120 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a vote. — Save_Us   †  06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean this is not a vote since when do you own the WWE roster page Save_Us?!!!  Steelerfan  -94   14:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Save Us was just saying that this is not a poll, it is a discussion, and the IP stated, "I vote for it." Save Us is correct, that this is not a poll, so there are not votes. It is just a discussion. I don't think Save Us was trying to take ownership in any way. iMat  thew   20  08  14:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try reading WP:CRYSTAL! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this page part deux
1. Why are we listing other personelle, if this is the "Roster" page?

2. This article continues to blur the lines of Kayfabe and Reality, especially when mentioning injury.

3. Alphabetizing - We have a consensus at WP:PW to alphabetize by First letter of first word in ring name, (I will start working on fixing this.)

4. The page is cumbersome to read, we really should consider tables.

Just some thoughts, any opinions? LessThanClippers (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) This is a roster page, roster does not stand for 'wrestlers', it means notable personelle in WWE.


 * 2) When something like a injury is kayfabe, its customary to place "(kayfabe)" before the part that is kayfabe to distinguish it. Is there someplace else I'm missing?


 * 3) Consensus here and for listing names is to list it the way it is, i.e.


 * Names like Carlito and Umaga: are obvious, alphabetize as from first letter


 * Names like Randy Orton and Paul London: List as O and L, those are their last names (legit and on stage, and like naming conventions all over Wikipedia, that is the way it should read)


 * Names like Shawn Michaels, Cody Rhodes and Val Venis: Their legit names are not given on television, but their stage names are treated like they are their real names on television, and this list reflects that as well, treating it as the last name going first.


 * Names like Big Show: Dispite a first part and last part, this is a stage name, and would be alphabetized as like the other stage names, first letter of the first part, like Umaga and Carlito


 * Names like The Undertaker and The Miz: Only difference here is that the word "The" is used. Ones with "The" in front of it are stage names, but "The" is ignored and it goes to the first letter directly after "The"


 * 3) continued: I'm guessing the section of the naming conventions here you are questioning is the third bullet (example with Michaels, Rhodes, etc.). I'm willing to clear up the blurry line there for people who are new, but dont arbitrarly change the whole naming conventions of a page (that has been successful for a long time with minimal problems) because of a !vote on WP:PW, when there was no specific discussion on this page. If you feel an error with these standards are in the article, then feel free to discuss that here (I could name one myself), as we have had over the lengthy exsitence of the article.


 * 4) Tables may be a good idea, I've tried it before, it looked fine, but others didn't like it as much. — Save_Us   †  22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the template idea is a good idea the thing is finding a template that is easy to read.  Steelerfan  -94   16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Colin Delaney
I was just reading www.wrestlezone.com and it said that Colin Delaney has signed with wwe last week. Is www.wrestlezone.com a reaible scource?

Please sign your comments!!  Steelerfan  -94   17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not reliable. iMat  thew   20  08  21:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * However, the promotion he originated from CHIKARA is reliable, and they made an official announcement on YouTube concerning his signing. Dahumorist (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Face/Heel
Do you think that wikipedia should put next to the wrestlers should put Face (clean) or Heel (Dirty)--Chrispowellathome (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)chrispowellathome


 * No, that's just unneccessary, and it'll just clutter up the page. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is unnecessary. This page is not about their character, just a list of who is employed by the WWE. If you want to see what their character is like, go to their individual articles. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is not about the character, then why are they listed under the character's name, and not their real names?  Alex  <sup style="color:darkblue;">T / C  Guest Book   23:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No because that is sort of trivial. This has been discussed before and it was agreed not to add it.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

--80.2.50.106 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah what would put like for John Cena I personaly love him but some people hate him.  Steelerfan  -94   19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He would be a face. He is written into storylines as a face. Negative crowd reaction does not make you a heel, though enough of it may make the writers have you turn. Edge is a heel, yet he does get some cheers at most arenas as well. That doesn't make him a tweener. His character is a heel, period, just as Cena's is a face. I mean currently. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Cena would walk before they turned him into a heel.  Steelerfan  -94   20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cena is a face but the fans are getting sick of his character. It wouldn't surprise me if they used this to make him a heel. To make him popular he would have to start doing good promos again. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cena has been getting that reaction for a year or more and they still haven't turned him heel. and this isn't a forum so can we keep this discussion to relevance to the article please.Skitzo (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well this discussion doesnt seem to be helping the article.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm all for it that way we can determin whos whos and for ones thats nor heel nor face we can put nutrul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.127.103 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before, and the consensus was not to add it to the article. iMat  thew   20  08  13:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Drillbit Taylor
I found him on the Raw Roster. Who is he and should he be put on the wwe roster --80.2.50.106 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Chrispowellathome


 * Where? I don't see anything about a "drillbit taylor" on the Raw roster. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Drillbit Taylor is the new Owen Wilson movie, so I doubt its real.   Less  Than  Clippers   20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is still on the wwe Raw roster. Must be a promtional thing then --81.99.45.255 (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)chrispowellathome


 * Yeah, they've done this sort of thing before. Leonidas was on the Smackdown roster page when 300 came out. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He is not going to be on the roster, neither is Donald Trump or Floyd Mayweather. They aren't there for anything but promotion, and they aren't going be added. — Save_Us   †  00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Victoria
Does everyone know what happen to happen Victoria after her match with Michelle McCool on 2/15 edition of Smackdown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.137.193 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum. iMat  thew   20  08  02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone cold
Why if you go to WWE.com under the RAW roster it lists stone cold? I know we probably shouldn't put him here but what's the deal?  Steelerfan  -94   14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been there since about 2005. he is under a contract with WWE Films, and most of his special appearances are on Raw. — Save_Us   †  00:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Save Us is correct. He is under contract with WWE mainly for film production. He makes sporadic appearances but that is about it. Not sure whether that makes him an "active" wrestler though. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. He's not wrestled a match (refereeing is not wrestling) in years. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree with Gavyn I was just asking. O and I am now known as SexySteelerFan  Sexy  Steeler  Fan   01:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good for you, buddy. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OPW
What is the deal with all of the inactive unasigned wrestlers like Colt Cobana and people like that? Do we know that WWE has kept them? and if so should we maybe make a different page for FPW and unasinged talent for them instead of cluttering up this page?  Sexy  Steeler  Fan   18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't working on professional wrestling articles at the time of WWE spliting from OVW but I do know that WWE had contracts with those wrestlers. If they aren't moved over to the other developmental territory or brand within a while they might have stayed with OVW. I would keep them on this page and moniter OVW results to see if they are showing up there. I have no opinion on moving the list of wrestlers that may be there or not over to the article. — <font color="#191970"> Κ aiba 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A number of sites have reported that the remaining names will be moved over to FCW in a couple weeks. Practically every site actually. haha Additionally, the most recent OVW results had none of the developmental guys on the card. Dahumorist (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)